Chapter XXIV · Procuring a Wife for Isaac (Yahwist, [Elohist?]).

Abraham on his death-bed (see below) solemnly charges his house-steward with the duty of procuring a wife for Isaac amongst his Mesopotamian relatives (^1‒9). The servant is providentially guided to the house of Nāḥôr, in whose daughter (see on verse ¹⁵) Rebekah he is led to recognise the divinely appointed bride for Isaac (^10‒49). Having obtained the consent of the relatives, and of the maiden herself (^50‒61), he brings her to Canaan, where Isaac marries her (^62‒67).

The chapter is one of the most perfect specimens of descriptive writing that the Book of Genesis contains. It is marked by idyllic grace and simplicity, picturesque elaboration of scenes and incidents, and a certain ‘epic’ amplitude of treatment, seen in the repetition of the story in the form of a speech (see Driver 230). These artistic elements so predominate that the primary ethnographic motive is completely submerged. It may be conjectured that the basis of the narrative was a reinforcement of the Aramæan element in the Hebrew stock, as in the kindred story of Jacob and his wives (see Steuernagel, Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 39 f.). But if such a historical kernel existed, it is quite lost sight of in the graphic delineation of human character, and of ancient Eastern life, which is to us the main interest of the passage. We must also note the profoundly religious conception of Yahwe’s providence as an unseen power, overruling events in answer to prayer. All these features seem to indicate a somewhat advanced phase in the development of the patriarchal tradition. The chapter belongs to the literary type most fully represented in the Joseph-narrative (compare Gunkel 220).

Source and Unity of the Narrative.—From the general character of the style, and the consistent use of the name יהוה, critical opinion has been practically unanimous in assigning the whole chapter to Yahwist. It is admitted, however, that certain ‘unevennesses of representation’ occur; and the question arises whether these are to be explained by accidental dislocations of the text, or by the interweaving of two parallel recensions. Thus, the servant’s objection that the maiden may not be willing to follow him (^{5. 39}), is met by Abraham in two ways: on the one hand by the confident assurance that this will not happen (^{7. 40}), and on the other by absolving him from his oath if his mission should miscarry (^{8. 41}). In ^{29 f.} Laban twice goes out to the man at the well (^29b ∥ ^30b); ²⁸ speaks of the mother’s house, ^23b of the father’s: in ⁵⁰ the servant negotiates with Laban and Bethuel, in ^{53. 55} with the brother and mother of the bride; in ⁵¹ the request is at once agreed to by the relatives without regard to Rebekah’s wish, whereas in ^{57 f.} the decision is left to herself; in ⁵⁹ Rebekah is sent away with her nurse, in ^61a she takes her own maidens with her; her departure is twice recorded (^61a ∥ ^61b). These doublets and variants are too numerous to be readily accounted for either by transpositions of the text (Dillmann al.) or by divergences in the oral tradition (Students’ Old Testament, 96); and although no complete analysis is here attempted, the presence of two narratives must be recognised. That one of these is Yahwist is quite certain; but it is to be observed that the characteristically Yahwistic expressions are somewhat sparsely distributed, and leave an ample margin of neutral ground for critical ingenuity to sift out the variants between two recensions.¹ The problem has been attacked with great acuteness and skill by Gunkel (215‒221) and Procksch (14 f.), though with very discordant results. I agree with Procksch that the second component is in all probability Elohist, mainly on the ground that a fusion of Yahwist^Hebron and Yahwist^Beersheba (Gunkel) is without parallel, whereas Yahwist^Beersheba and Elohist are combined in chapter 21. The stylistic criteria are, indeed, too indecisive to permit of a definite conclusion; but the parallels instanced above can easily be arranged in two series, one of which is free from positive marks of Yahwist; while, in the other, everything is consistent with the supposition that Abraham’s residence is Beersheba (see page 241 above).

¹ יהוה, ^{1. 3. 7. 12. 21. 26. 27. 31. 35. 40. 42. 44. 48. 50. 51. 52. 56}; ארם נהרים, ¹⁰ (against Priestly-Code’s פדן ארם); ארצי ומולדתי, ⁴ (12¹); בא בימים ¹ (see on 18¹¹); טבת מראה, ¹⁶ (26⁷, compare 12¹¹); ידע, ¹⁶ (see on 4¹); יש with suffix and participle ^{42. 49}; טרם, ^{15. 45}; הצליח, ^{21. 40. 42. 56} (39^{2. 3. 23}); הקרה, ¹² (27²⁰); רוץ לקראת, ¹⁷ (see 18²); נא, ^{2. 12. 14. 17. 23. 42. 43. 45}.

The Death of Abraham.—It is impossible to escape the impression that in verses ^1‒9 Abraham is very near his end, and that in ^62‒67 his death is presupposed. It follows that the account of the event in Jehovist must have occurred in this chapter, and been suppressed by the Redactor in favour of that of Priestly-Code (25^7‒11), according to which Abraham survived the marriage of Isaac by some 35 years (compare 25²⁰). The only question is whether it happened before or after the departure of the servant. Except in ^14bα, the servant invariably speaks as if his master were still alive (compare ^{12. 14bβ. 27. 37. 42. 44b. 48. 51. 54. 56}). In ⁶⁵, on other hand, he seems to be aware, before meeting Isaac, that Abraham is no more. There is here a slight diversity of representation, which may be due to the composition of sources. Gunkel supposes that in the document to which ^{14bα. 36b} and ⁶⁵ belong (Yahwist^Beersheba), the death was recorded after ⁹ (and related by the servant after ⁴¹); while in the other (Yahwist^Hebron) it was first noticed in connexion with the servant’s meeting with Isaac (before ⁶⁶). Procksch thinks Elohist’s notice followed verse ⁹, but doubts whether Abraham’s death was presupposed by Yahwist’s account of the servant’s return.—Verse ^36b is thought to point back to 25⁵; and hence some critics (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, Dillmann, al.) suppose that 25^{1‒6 (11b)} originally preceded chapter 24; while others (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel) find a more suitable place for 25⁵ (with or without ^11b) between 24¹ and 24². See, further, on 25^1‒6 below.

1‒9. The servant’s commission.—1. had blessed, etc.] His life as recorded is, indeed, one of unclouded prosperity.—2. the oldest (i.e. senior in rank) servant, etc.] who, in default of an heir, would have succeeded to the property (15^{2 f.}), and still acts as the trusted guardian of the family interests; compare the position of Ziba in 2 Samuel 9^{1 ff.} 16^{1 ff.}.—put thy hand, etc.] Only again 47²⁹)—another death-bed scene! It is, in fact, only the imminence of death that can account for the action here: had Abraham expected to live, a simple command would have sufficed (Gunkel).

The reference is to an oath by the genital organs, as emblems of the life-giving power of deity,—a survival of primitive religion whose significance had probably been forgotten in the time of the narrator. Traces have been found in various parts of the world: see Ewald Antiquities of Israel 19⁶ [English translation]; Dillmann 301; Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 395; and especially the striking Australian parallel cited by Spurreil (²218) from Sir G. Grey.¹ By Jewish writers it was considered an appeal to the covenant of circumcision (Targum^Jonathan, Jerome Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim, Rashi; so Tuch, Delitzsch). Abraham Ibn Ezra explains it as a symbol of subjection, (adding that it was still a custom in India); Ewald, Dillmann, Holzinger, al. as invoking posterity (יֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ, 46²⁶, Exodus 1⁵, Judges 8³⁰) to maintain the sanctity of the oath.

¹ “One native remains seated on the ground with his heels tucked under him...; the one who is about to narrate a death to him approaches ... and seats himself cross-legged upon the thighs of the other; ... and the one who is seated uppermost places his hands under the thighs of his friend; ... an inviolable pledge to avenge the death has by this ceremony passed between the two.”

3. God of heaven and of earth] an expression for the divine omnipresence in keeping with the spiritual idea of God’s providence which pervades the narrative. The full phrase is not again found (see verse ⁷).—thou shalt not take, etc.] The motive is a natural concern for the purity of the stock: see Bertholet, Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den fremden 67.—5‒8. The servant’s fear is not that he may fail to find a bride for Isaac, but that the woman may refuse to be separated so far from her kindred: would the oath bind him in that event to take Isaac back to Ḥarran? The suggestion elicits from the dying patriarch a last utterance of his unclouded faith in God.—7. God of heaven] v.i.—send his Angel] compare Exodus 23^{20. 23} 33², Numbers 20¹⁶. The Angel is here an invisible presence, almost a personification of God’s providence; contrast the older conception in 16^{7 ff.}.

3. לבני] LXX + Ἰσαάκ (as verse ⁴); so verse ⁷.—4. כי] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch כי אם.—At the end LXX, Vulgate add מִשָּׁם as verse ⁷.—5. אָבָה] always with negative, except Isaiah 1¹⁹, Job 39⁹ (Sirach 6³³).—7. אלהי השמים] appears only in late books (Jonah 1⁹, 2 Chronicles 36²³ = Ezra 1², Nehemiah 1^{4 f.} 2^{4. 20}: אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא is frequent in Aramaic parts of Ezra and Daniel). The words are wanting in one Hebrew MS (see Kittel), and may be deleted as a gloss. Otherwise we must add with LXX ואלהי הארץ (compare ³).—ואשר נשבע לי] probably interpolated by a later hand (Dillmann); see page 284 above.—8. אחריך] LXX + εἰς τὴν γῆν ταύτην.—לא תשב (but The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch תשיב)] jussive with לֹא; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 109 d.

10‒14. The servant at the well.—On the fidelity of the picture to Eastern life, see Thomson, The Land and the Book, i. 261.—10. ten camels] to bring home the bride and her attendants (⁶¹). But “such an expedition would not now be undertaken ... with any other animals, nor with a less number.”—goodly things] for presents to the bride and her relations (^{22. 53}).—On ’Aram Naharaim, see the footnote.—the city of Nāḥôr in Yahwist would be Ḥarran (compare 27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴): but the phrase is probably an Elohistic variant to ’Aram Naharaim, in which case a much less distant locality may be referred to (see on 29¹).—12‒14. The servant’s prayer. The request for a sign is illustrated by Judges 6^{36 ff.}, 1 Samuel 14^{8 ff.}: note הִנֵּה אָֽנֹכִי [אֲנַחְנוּ] in all three cases. A spontaneous offer to draw for the camels would (if Thomson’s experience be typical) be unusual,—in any case the mark of a kind and obliging disposition.—13. the daughters ... to draw water] compare 1 Samuel 9¹¹.

10. Unless we admit a duality of sources, it will be necessary to omit the first וַיֵּלֶךְ (with LXX).—וכל־] better וּמִכָּל־ (LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå).—ארם נהרים] Deuteronomy 23⁵, Judges 3⁸, Psalms 60², 1 Chronicles 19⁶†. Targum^Onkelos ארם דעל פרת. The identity of the second element with Egyptian Naharin, Tel-Amarna Tablets Naḫrima (79¹⁴ [rev.], 181³⁴, 119³²) is beyond dispute; but it is perhaps too readily assumed that geographically the expressions correspond. The Egyptian Naharin extended from East of the Euphrates to the valley of the Orontes (Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 249 ff.); all that can be certainly affirmed about the biblical term is that it embraced both sides of the Euphrates (Ḥarran on the East; Pethor on the West [Deuteronomy 23⁵]). Since there is no trace of a dual in the Egyptian and Canaanite forms, it is doubtful if the Hebrew ending be anything but a Massoretic caprice (read נהרִים?), or a locative termination, to be read -ām (Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 45¹; Meyer, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, iii. 307 f.: compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 88 c, and Strack page 135 f. with reff.). There would in this last case be no need to find a second river (Tigris, Chaboras, Baliḫ, Orontes, etc.) to go with Euphrates. The old identification with the Greek Mesopotamia must apparently be abandoned. See, further, Dillmann 302; Moore, Judges 87, 89; Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 28 f.—12. הקרה] ‘make it occur,’ 27²⁰ (Yahwist).—14. הַֽנַּעֲרָ֯] Ḳrê. הנערה; so verses ^{16. 28. 55. 57} 34^{3. 12}, Deuteronomy 22^{15 f. 20 f. 23‒29}. הנערה is found as Ke. in Pentateuch only Deuteronomy 22¹⁹, but The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch reads so throughout. It is hazardous to postulate an archaic epicene use of נַעַר on such restricted evidence: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 655 a; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 17 c.—אשקה] LXX + ἕως ἂν παύσωνται πίνουσαι.—הֹכַחְתָּ] decide, adjudicate, here = ‘allot’; so only verse ⁴⁴. Contrast 20¹⁶ 21²⁵ 31^{37. 42}† (Elohist), Leviticus 19¹⁷† (Priestly-Code).—ובה] ‘and thereby’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 p.

15‒27. The servant and Rebekah.—15. who was born to Bethuel, etc.] compare ^{24. 47}.

The somewhat awkward phrasing has led Dillmann al. to surmise that all these verses have been glossed, and that here the original text ran אֲשֶׁר יָֽלְדָה מִלְכָּה וגו׳, Rebekah being the daughter of Milkah and Nāḥôr. Compare 29⁵, where Laban is described as the son of Nāḥôr. The redactional insertion of Bethû’ēl would be explained by the divergent tradition of Priestly-Code (25²⁰ 28^{2. 5}), in which Bethû’ēl is simply an ‘Aramæan,’ and not connected with Nāḥôr at all (see Budde 421 ff.). The question can hardly be decided (Holzinger 168); but there is a considerable probability that the original Yahwist made Laban and Rebekah the children of Nāḥôr. In that case, however, it will be necessary to assume that the tradition represented by Priestly-Code was known to the Yahwistic school before the final redaction, and caused a remodelling of the genealogy of 22^{20 ff.} (see page 333). Compare, however, Bosse, Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1908, 2, page 8 f.

15. After טרם read יְכַלֶּה (compare ⁴⁵); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 c.—The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate inserts אֶל־לִבּוֹ after לְדַבֵּר (⁴⁵).

16. Taking no notice of the stranger, the maiden went down to the fountain (עַיִן) ... and came up] In Eastern wells the water is frequently reached by steps: contrast Exodus 2¹⁶ (וַתִּדְלֶנָה), John 4¹¹.—19, 20. The writer lingers over the scene, with evident delight in the alert and gracious actions of the damsel.—21. The servant meanwhile has stood gazing at her in silence, watching the ample fulfilment of the sign.—22. The nose-ring and bracelets are not the bridal gift (Gunkel), but a reward for the service rendered, intended to excite interest in the stranger, and secure the goodwill of the maiden. See Lane, An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians⁵ ii. 320, 323; compare Lectures on the Religion of the Semites², 453².—23‒25. In the twofold question and answer, there is perhaps a trace of the composition of narratives; v.i.—24. See on ¹⁵. Read the daughter of Milkah whom she bore to Nāḥôr (as 34¹).—26, 27. The servant’s act of worship marks the close of the scene.

18 end] LXX + ἕως ἐπαύσατο πίνων, omitting the first two words of verse ¹⁹.—20. השקת] the stone trough for watering animals, found at every well (30³⁸, compare 30⁴¹, Exodus 2¹⁶).—21. משתאה] not ‘wondering’ (√ שׁאה; so Delitzsch), but ‘gazing’ (by-form of √ שעה) as Isaiah 41¹⁰. Construct state before preposition: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 130 a.—22. משקלו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch + וישם על אפה, a necessary addition (compare ⁴⁷). נֶזֶם accordingly is here a ‘nose-jewel’ (Isaiah 3²¹, Proverbs 11²²), in 35⁴, Exodus 32^{2. 3} (Elohist) an earring.—בקע] = ½ shekel (Exodus 38²⁶).—23‒25. The theory of two recensions derives some little support from the repeated ותאמר אליו of ^{24. 25}. A mere rearrangement such as Ball proposes (^{23a. 24. 23b. 25}) only cures one anomaly by creating another; and is, besides, impossible if the amendment given above for verse ²⁴ be accepted.—25. ללון] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ללין, as verse ²³; but infinitive elsewhere is always לוּן.—27. אנכי emphasises the following accusative suffix (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 143 b, 135 d, e). Peshiṭtå implies perhaps כִּי אִם (Ball) or כִּי (Kittel); if not a mistake for .—אחי] Point אֲחִי (singular) with versions.

28‒32. Laban’s hospitality is inspired by the selfish greed for which that worthy was noted in tradition.—28. her mother’s house cannot mean merely the female side of the family (Dillmann), for Laban belongs to it, and ^{53. 55} imply that the father (whether Bethuel or Nāḥôr) is not the head of the house. Some find in the notice a relic of matriarchy (Holzinger, Gunkel); but the only necessary inference is that the father was dead.—31. seeing I have cleared the house] turning part of it into a stable.—32. he (Laban) brought the man in (v.i.) ... and ungirt the camels] without removing the pack-saddles.¹—to wash his feet, etc.] compare 18⁴.

¹ “The camel is very delicate, and could easily catch a chill if the saddle were taken away imprudently; and on no account can the camel stay out of doors in bad weather. It is then taken into the house, part of which is turned into a stable” (Baldensperger, Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statements, 1904, 130).

28. אִמָּהּ] Peshiṭtå (wrongly).—30. כראותו (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch) is better than Massoretic Text כראת.—והנה עמד] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116 s; Davidson § 100 (a).—31. פִּנִּיתִי] ‘cleared away,’ as Leviticus 14³⁶, Isaiah 40³ etc.; compare Arabic √ fanaʸ IV. = effecit ut dispareret.—32. וַיָּבֵא] (Vulgate) avoids an awkward change of subject, and is to be preferred (Olshausen, Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel). The objection (Dillmann al.) that this would require to be followed by אֶת־ is answered by the very next clause. Irregularity in the use of אָת־ is a puzzling phenomenon in the chapter, which unfortunately fits in with no workable scheme of documentary analysis.

33‒49. The servant’s narrative.—A recapitulation of the story up to this point, with intentional variations of language, and with some abridgment. LXX frequently accommodates the text to what has gone before, but its readings need not be considered.—35. Compare 12¹⁶ 13².—36b. has given him all that he had] This is the only material addition to the narrative. But the notice is identical with 25⁵, and probably points back to it in some earlier context (see page 341 above).—40. before whom I have walked] Compare 17¹. Gunkel’s suggested alteration: ‘who has gone before me,’ is an unauthorised and unnecessary addition to the Tikkûnê Sōpherîm (see 18²²).—41. אָלָה (bis) for שְׁבוּעָה, verse ⁸. On the connexion of oath and curse, see Wellhausen Reste arabischen Heidentums² 192 f.—45‒47. Greatly abbreviated from ^15‒25.—the daughter of [Bethû’ēl the son of Nāḥôr; etc.] see on ^{15. 24}.—48. daughter of my master’s brother] ‘Brother,’ may, of course, stand for ‘relative’ or ‘nephew’ (29^{12. 15}); but if Bethuel be interpolated in ^{15. 24. 47}, Rebekah was actually first cousin to Isaac, and such marriages were considered the most eligible by the Naḥorites (29¹⁹).—49. that I may turn, etc.] not to seek a bride elsewhere (Dillmann), but generally ‘that I may know how to act.’

33. וַיּיּשַׂם֯] Ḳrê and The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויושם (Hophal √ שׂום), LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיָּשֶׂם. But Kethîb recurs in Massoretic Text of 50²⁶ (וַיִּישֶׂם), again with passive significance. The anomalous form may be passive of Qal (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 73 f), or metaplastic Niphal from ישׂם or ושׂם (Nöldeke, Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 39 f.).—ויאמר²] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיֹּאמְרוּ, which is perhaps better.—36. זקנתה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX זִקְנָתוֹ.—38. אִם לֹא never has the sense of Aramaic אֶלָּא (sondern), and must be taken as the common form of adjuration (Delitzsch), The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (London Polyglott) has כי אם.—41. מאלתי] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 95 n.—The verse contains a slight redundancy (^aα ∥ ^bβ), but nothing is gained by interposing a clause between ^aβ and ^bα (Kautzsch-Socin).—46. מעליה] LXX ἐπὶ τὸν βραχίονα αὐτῆς ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς (conflate?); Vulgate de humero (compare ¹⁸).

50‒61. Departure of Rebekah, with the consent and blessing of her relatives.—50. The relatives, recognising the hand of Providence in the servant’s experiences, decline to answer bad or good: i.e., anything whatever, as 31^{24. 29}, Numbers 24¹³ etc.

The verse as a whole yields a perfectly good sense: ‘we cannot speak, because Yahwe has decided’; and ⁵¹ is a natural sequel. It is a serious flaw in Gunkel’s analysis of ^{50 ff.}, that he has to break up ⁵⁰, connecting מִיהוה יָצָא הַדָּבָר with ⁵¹, and the rest of the verse with ^{57 f.} (‘we cannot speak: let the maiden decide’).—On the other hand, לָבָן וּבְתוּאֵל in ⁵⁰ is barely consistent with אָחִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ in ^{53. 55}. Since the mention of the father after the brother would in any case be surprising, Dillmann al. suppose that here again ובתואל is an interpolation; Kittel reads וּבֵתוֹ, and Holzinger substitutes וּמִלְכָּה. Gunkel (219) considers that in this recension Bethuel is a younger brother of Laban.

51. Here, at all events, the matter is settled in accordance with custom, without consulting the bride.—53. The presents are given partly to the bride and partly to her relatives. In the latter we may have a survival of the מֹהַר (34¹², Exodus 22¹⁶, 1 Samuel 18²⁵†) or purchase-price of a wife; but Gunkel rightly observes that the narrative springs from a more refined idea of marriage, from which the notion of actual purchase has all but disappeared. So in Islam mahr and ṣadaḳ (the gift to the wife) have come to be synonymous terms for dowry (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 93, 96): compare Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie² 106.—55. The reluctance to part with Rebekah is another indication of refined feeling (Gunkel). On יָמִים אוֹ עָשׂוֹר, v.i.—56. The servant’s eagerness to be gone arises from the hope of finding his old master still alive.—57, 58. The question here put to Rebekah is not whether she will go now or wait a few days, but whether she will go at all. The reference to the wishes of the bride may be exceptional (owing to the distance, etc.); but a discrepancy with ⁵¹ cannot easily be got rid of.—59. their sister] compare ‘your daughter,’ 34⁸, the relation to the family being determined by that to the head of the house. But it is better to read אַחֶיהָ (plural) in ^{53. 55} with Vulgate, Peshiṭtå and MSS of LXX.—her nurse] see on 35⁸.—60. The blessing on the marriage (compare Ruth 4^{11 ff.}), rhythmic in form, is perhaps an ancient fragment of tribal poetry associated with the name of Rebekah.—possess the gate] as 22¹⁷.—61a and 61b seem to be variants. For another solution (Kautzsch-Socin), see on ⁶².—her maidens] parallel to ‘her nurse’ in ⁵⁹.

53. מגדנת (Ezra 1⁶, 2 Chronicles 21³ 32²³†)] ‘costly gifts,’ from √ מגד, Arabic maǧada = ‘be noble.’—55. וְאָחִיהָ] LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read וְאַחֶיהָ; and so Peshiṭtå, Vulgate and many Greek cursives in ⁵³.—ימים או עשור] ‘a few days, say ten,’ is a fairly satisfying rendering (LXX ἡμέρας ὡσεὶ δέκα); ‘a year or ten months’ (Targum^Onkelos, Rashi) is hardly admissible. But the text seems uncertain: The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ימים או חדש; Peshiṭtå (compare 29¹⁴). In deference to The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå we may insert חֹדֶשׁ before יָמִים: ‘a month or at least ten days’ (Olshausen, Ball).—תֵּלֵךְ] probably 3rd feminine (so all Versions).—59. מנקתה] LXX τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῆς = מִקְנָתָהּ, a word of Priestly-Code.—60. אַתְּ is appositional vocative, not subject to אֲחֹתֵנוּ (soror nostra es, Vulgate).—הֲיִי] with abnormal ‏־ֲ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 63 q).—שנאיו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch איביו, as 22¹⁷.

62‒67. The home-bringing of Rebekah.—62. Now Isaac had come ...] What follows is hardly intelligible. The most probable sense is that during the servant’s absence Isaac had removed to Beer-laḥai-roi, and that near that well the meeting took place.

The difficulty lies partly in the corrupt מִבּוֹא (v.i.), partly in the circumstantial form of the sentence, and partly in the unexplained disappearance of Abraham. Keeping these points in mind, the most conservative exegesis is that of Delitzsch: Isaac (supposed to be living with his father at Beersheba) ‘was coming from a walk in the direction of Beersheba’, when he met the camels; this, however, makes וַיֵּצֵא (⁶³) pluperfect, which is hardly right. More recent writers proceed on the assumption that the death of Abraham had been explicitly recorded. Holzinger suggests that Isaac had removed to Laḥairoi during his father’s life (transposing 25^11b before 24²), and that now he comes from that place (reads מִמִּדְבַּֽר) on hearing of Abraham’s death. Dillmann reads ^62a ויבא[יצחק] אל מדבר ב׳, and finds in these words the notice of Isaac’s migration to Beersheba.—Kautzsch-Socin, reading as Dillmann, but making the servant implicit subject of ויבא, puts the chief hiatus between ^61a and ^61b: the servant on his return learned that Abraham was dead; then (^61b) took Rebekah and went further; and (^62a) came to Laḥairoi.—Gunkel (operating with two sources) considers ⁶² the immediate sequel to ^61a in the document where Abraham’s death preceded the servant’s departure, so that nothing remained to be chronicled but Isaac’s removal to Laḥairoi (reads מְבוֹא, ‘to the entrance of’). This solution is attractive, and could perhaps be carried through independently of his division of sources. For even if the death followed the departure, it might very well have been recorded in the early part of the chapter (after ¹⁰).

62. מִבּוֹא] cannot be infinitive construct with מִן; the French il vint d’arriver (Hupfeld 29) has no analogy in Hebrew idiom. Nor can it readily be supposed equivalent to מִלְּבוֹא (1 Kings 8⁶⁵; Delitzsch v.s.); for the direction in which Isaac took his walk is an utterly irrelevant circumstance, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch and LXX (διὰ τῆς ἐρήμου) read במדבר, from which a fairly suitable text (מִדְבַּֽר or מִמּ׳) could be obtained (compare Dillmann and Holzinger s.). Gunkel’s מְבוֹא (as accusative of direction) has no parallel except the very remote one of מבואת ים, Ezekiel 27³ (of the situation of Tyre). Other suggestions are to delete the word as an uncorrected lapse of the pen; to read מִבְּאֵר with omission of the following בְּאֵר (Lagarde, Procksch); to substitute מבא[רשׁבע] (‘from Beersheba to’: Ball).—באר לחי ראי] LXX (here and 25¹¹) τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ὁράσεως, omitting לחי; refer to page 289 above.

63. לָשׂוּחַ] a word of uncertain meaning, possibly to roam (v.i.).—toward the approach of evening] (Deuteronomy 23¹²), when the Oriental walks abroad (compare 3⁸).—camels were coming] In the distance he cannot discern them as his own.—64. At the sight of a stranger Rebekah dismounts (נָפַל as 2 Kings 5²¹), a mark of respect still observed in the East (The Land and the Book, i. 762; Seetzen, Reisen, iii. 190); compare Joshua 15¹⁸, 1 Samuel 25²³.—65. It is my master] Apparently the servant is aware, before meeting Isaac, that Abraham is dead.—The putting on of the veil (compare nubere viro), the survival of a primitive marriage taboo, is part of the wedding ceremony (see Lane, An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians⁵, i. 217 f.).—67. brought her into the tent] The next phrase (שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ) violates a fundamental rule of syntax, and must be deleted as a gloss. Isaac’s own tent is referred to. This is the essential feature of the marriage ceremony in the East (see Benzinger Hebräische Archäologie² 108 f.).—comforted himself after [the death of] his mother] It is conjectured (Wellhausen al.) that the real reading was ‘his father,’ whose death had recently taken place. The change would naturally suggest itself after Yahwist’s account of the death of Abraham had been suppressed in accordance with Priestly-Code’s chronology. The death of Sarah is likewise unrecorded by Yahwist or Elohist.

63. לָשׂוּחַ] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον commonly identified with שֵׁיחַ = ‘muse,’ ‘complain,’ ‘talk,’ etc.; so LXX (ἀδολεσχῆσαι), Aquila (ὁμιλῆσαι), Symmachus (λαλῆσαι), Vulgate (ad meditandum: so Tuch, Delitzsch), Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan} (לצלאה: Rashi); Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, al. think the sense of ‘mourning’ (for his father) most probable; but? Abraham Ibn Ezra (‘to walk among the shrubs’) and Böttcher (‘to gather brushwood’) derive from שֵׁיחַ (21¹⁵). Peshiṭtå is thought to rest on a reading לָשׁוּט (adopted by Gesenius al.), but is rather a conjecture. Nöldeke (Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 43 f.) suggests a connexion with Arabic sāḥa = ‘stroll’ (point לָשׁוּחַ).—הגמלים of The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch is wrong (v.s.).—65. הַלָּזֶה] 37¹⁹†; The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch הלז.—הצעיף] 38^{14. 19}† (Yahwist). On the article compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 s. After Lagarde’s brilliant note (Semitica 23 ff.), it can scarcely be doubted that the word denotes a large double square wrapper or shawl, of any material.—67. ויבאה] LXX εἰσῆλθεν δέ.—האהלה שרה] article with construct is violently ungrammatical; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 f.—For אִמּוֹ² read מוֹת אָבִיו (Kittel) v.s.

XXV. 1‒6. The Sons of Ḳeṭurah (Yahwist? Redactor?).

The Arabian tribes with whom the Israelites acknowledged a looser kinship than with the Ishmaelites or Edomites are here represented as the offspring of Abraham by a second marriage (compare 1 Chronicles 1^{32 f.}).

The names Midian, Sheba, Dedan (see below) show that these Ḳeṭurean peoples must be sought in North Arabia, and in the tract of country partly assigned to the Ishmaelites in verse ¹⁸. The fact that in Judges 8²⁴ Midianites are classed as Ishmaelites (compare Genesis 37^{25 ff.}) points to some confusion between the two groups, which in the absence of a Yahwistic genealogy of Ishmael it is impossible altogether to clear up. Wellhausen (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 29¹) has dropped a hint that Ḳeṭurah may be but a traditional variant of Hagar;¹ Holzinger conjectures that the names in ^2‒4 are taken from Yahwist’s lost Ishmaelite genealogy; and Kent (Students’ Old Testament, i. 101) thinks it not improbable that Ḳeṭurah was originally the wife of Ishmael. Glaser (ii. 450) considers the Ḳeṭureans remains of the ancient Minæan people, and not essentially different from the Ishmaelites and Edomites. See, further, on verse ¹⁸ below.

¹ So Jewish interpreters: Targum^Jonathan, Bereshith Rabba, Jerome Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim, Rashi (but not Abraham Ibn Ezra).

Source.—(a) The genealogy (^1‒4) contains slight traces of Yahwist in יָלַר, ³; כָּל־אֵלָּה בְּנֵי ⁴ (compare 10²⁹ 9¹⁹); Priestly-Code is excluded by ילד, and the discrepancy with 10⁷ as to Sheba and Dedan; while Elohist appears not to have contained any genealogies at all. The verses must therefore be assigned to some Yahwistic source, in spite of the different origin given for Sheba in 10²⁸.—(b) The section as a whole cannot, however, belong to the primary Yahwistic document; because there the death of Abraham had already been recorded in chapter 24, and 24³⁶ refers back to 25⁵.¹ We must conclude that 25^1‒6 is the work of a compiler, who has incorporated the genealogy, and taken verse ⁵ from its original position (see on 24³⁶) to bring it into connexion with Abraham’s death. These changes may have been made in a revised edition of Yahwist (so Gunkel); but in this case we must suppose that the account of Abraham’s death was also transferred from chapter 24, to be afterwards replaced by the notice of Priestly-Code. It seems to me easier (in view of ^11b and ¹⁸) to hold that the adjustments were effected during the final redaction of the Pentateuch, in accordance with the chronological scheme of Priestly-Code.

¹ The mere transposition of 25^1‒6 before chapter 24 (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, al.) does not fully meet the difficulty, there being, in fact, no suitable place for a second marriage of Abraham anywhere in the original Yahwist (Holzinger).

1. Ḳĕṭûrāh, called a ‘concubine’ in 1 Chronicles 1³² (compare verse ⁶ below), is here a wife, the death of Sarah being presupposed. The name occurs nowhere else, and is probably fictitious, though Arabian genealogists speak of a tribe Ḳaṭūra in the vicinity of Mecca (Knobel-Dillmann). There is no ‘absurdity’ (Delitzsch) in the suggestion that it may contain an allusion to the traffic in incense (קְטוֹרָה) which passed through these regions (see Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 313).—2‒4. The Ḳeṭurean stock is divided into 6 (LXX 7) main branches, of which only one, Midian, attained historic importance. The minor groups number 10 (LXX 12), including the well-known names Sheba and Dedan.

2. זִמְרָן (Ζεβράν, Ζομβράν, etc.) has been connected with the Ζαβράμ [Ζαδραμ?] of Ptolemy vi. 7. 5, West of Mecca (Knobel); and with the Zamareni of Pliny, Naturalis Historia, vi. 158, in the interior; but these are probably too far South. The name is probably derived from זֶמֶר = ‘wild goat,’ the ending ān (which is common in the Ḳeṭurean and Ḥorite lists and rare elsewhere) being apparently gentilic: compare זִמְרִי, Numbers 25¹⁴, 1 Chronicles 2⁶ 8³⁶ 9⁴². A connexion with זִמְרִי (Peshiṭtå ), Jeremiah 25²⁵ is very doubtful. On יָקְשָׁן (Ἰεξάν, Ἱεκτάν, etc.) see on verse ³—מְדָן (Μαδαίμ)] unknown. Wetzstein instances a Wādī Medān near the ruins of Daidan.—מִדְיָן (Μαδιάμ)] The name appears as Μοδίανα = Μαδιαμα in Ptolemy vi. 7. 2, 27 (compare Josephus Antiquities of the Jews ii. 257; Eusebius Onomasticon, page 276), the Madyan of Arab geography, a town on the East side of the Gulf of Aḳaba, opposite the South end of the Sinaitic peninsula (see Nöldeke Encyclopædia Biblica, 3081). The chief seat of this great tribe or nation must therefore have been in the northern Ḥiǧāz, whence roving bands ravaged the territory of Moab, Edom (Genesis 36³⁵), and Israel (Judges 6‒8). The mention of Midianites in the neighbourhood of Horeb may be due to a confusion between Yahwist and Elohist (see Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 3 f.); and after the time of the Judges they practically disappear from history. “As to their occupations, we sometimes find them described as peaceful shepherds, sometimes as merchants [Genesis 37^{28. 36}, Isaiah 60⁶], sometimes as roving warriors, delighting to raid the more settled districts” (Nöldeke).—יִשְׁבָּק and שׁוּחַ have been identified by Friedrich Delitzsch (Zeitschrift für Keilschriftsforschung, ii. 91 f., Wo lag das Paradies? 297 f.) and Glaser (ii. 445 f.), with Yasbuḳ and Sûḫu of Assyrian monuments (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, i. 159, 33, 99, 101), both regions of northern Syria. Delitzsch has since abandoned the latter identification (Hiob, 139) for phonetic reasons.—3. שְׁבָא and דְּדָן] see on 10⁷. As they are there bracketed under רַֽעֲמָה, so here under יָקְשָׁן, a name otherwise unknown. The equation with יָקְטָן (10^{25 ff.}), proposed by Tuch and accepted by Meyer (318), is phonologically difficult. Since the Sabæans are here still in the North, it would seem that this genealogy goes farther back than that of the Yokṭanite Arabs in chapter 10. Between Sheba and Dedan, LXX inserts Θαιμάν (= תֵימָא, verse ¹⁵).—3b. The sons of Dedan are wanting in 1 Chronicles, and are probably interpolated here (note the plural). LXX has in addition Ραγουὴλ (compare 36¹⁰) καὶ Ναβδεήλ (compare verse ¹³).—אַשּׁוּרִם] certainly not the Assyrians (אַשּׁוּר), but some obscure North Arabian tribe,—possibly the אאשר mentioned on two Minæan inscriptions along with מצר (Egypt), עבר נהרן, and Gaza (Hommel The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 248 f., 252 f., Aufsätze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts, 297 ff.; Glaser, ii. 455 ff.; Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, i. 28 f.; König, Fünf Landschaften, 9: compare, on the other side, Meyer Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xi. 327 ff., Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 320 ff.).—לְטוּשִׁם] The personal name לטשו (as also אשורו) has been found in Nabatean inscriptions; see Levy, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xiv. 403 f., 447, 477 f., where attention is called to the prevalence of craftsmen’s names in these inscriptions, and a connexion of ל׳ with לֹטֵשׁ in 4²² is suggested.—4. Five sons of Midian.—עֵיפָה is named along with Midian in Isaiah 60⁶ as a trading tribe. It has been identified with the Ḫayapa (= עֲיָפָה?) mentioned by Tiglath-pileser IV. and Sargon, along with some 6 other rebellious Arab tribes (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ii. 21, 43): see Delitzsch Wo lag das Paradies? 304, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 58.—With עֵפֶר, Wetzstein compares the modern ‛Ofr (Dillmann); Glaser (449), Assyrian Apparu (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ii. 223).—חֲנֹךְ] Perhaps Hanākiya near ‛Ofr (Knobel-Dillmann).—It is noteworthy that these three names—עיפה, 1 Chronicles 2^{46 f.}; עפר, 1 Chronicles 4¹⁷ 5²⁴; חנך, Genesis 46⁹, Exodus 6¹⁴, Numbers 26⁵, 1 Chronicles 5³—are found in the Hebrew tribes most exposed to contact with Midian (Judah, Manasseh, Reuben). Does this show an incorporation of Midianite clans in Israel? (Nöldeke).—אֲבִידָע (‛Abî-yada‛a) and אֶלְדָּעָה (’Il-yeda‛ and Yeda-’il) are personal names in Sabæan, the former being borne by several kings (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xxvii. 648, xxxvii. 399; Glasser ii. 449).

5. See on 24³⁶.—6. The exodus of the Bnê Ḳedem (composed by a redactor).—the concubines] apparently Hagar and Ḳeṭurah, though neither bears that opprobrious epithet in Genesis: in 16³ Hagar is even called אִשָּׁה. Moreover, Ishmael and his mother, according to Yahwist and Elohist, had long been separated from Abraham.—sent them away from off Isaac] so as not to be a burden upon him. Compare Judges 11².—eastward to the land of Ḳedem] the Syro-Arabian desert.

So we must render, unless (with Gunkel) we are to take the two phrases קֵדְמָה and אֶל־אֶרֶץ קֶדֶם as variants. But קֶדֶם in Old Testament is often a definite geographical expression, denoting the region East and South-east of the Dead Sea (compare 29¹, Numbers 23⁷, Judges 6^{3. 33} 7¹² 8¹⁰, Isaiah 11¹⁴, Jeremiah 49²⁸, Ezekiel 25^{4. 10}, Job 1³); and although its appellative significance could, of course, not be forgotten, it has almost the force of a proper name. It is so used in the Egyptian romance of Sinuhe (circa 1900 B.C.): see Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 46 f.; Winckler Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, 52 ff.; Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 243 f.

5 end] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå + בְּנוֹ.—6. פִּילֶגֶשׁ (see on 22²⁴) is used of שִׁפְחָה in 35²².—אשר לאברהם] LXX αὐτοῦ.

XXV. 7‒11. The Death and Burial of Abraham (Priestly-Code).

^7‒11a are the continuation of 23²⁰ in Priestly-Code. Note the characteristic phrases: יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי, ⁷; גָּוַע, בְּשֶׁיבָה טוֹבָה, נֶֽאֱסַף אֶל־עַמָּיו ⁸; אֱלֹהִים, ^11a; the chronology ⁷, the reminiscences of chapter 23, and the backward reference in 49³¹.—^11b belongs to Yahwist.

8. gathered to his kindred (see on 17¹⁴)] Originally, this and similar phrases (15¹⁵ 47³⁰, Deuteronomy 31¹⁶ etc.) denoted burial in the family sepulchre; but the popular conception of Sheôl as a vast aggregate of graves in the under world enabled the language to be applied to men who (like Abraham) were buried far from their ancestors.—Isaac and Ishmael] The expulsion of Ishmael is consistently ignored by Priestly-Code.—11a. Transition to the history of Isaac (25^{19 ff.}).

^11b (like verse ⁵) has been torn from its context in Yahwist, where it may have stood after 24¹ 25⁵, or (more probably) after the notice of Abraham’s death (compare 24⁶²). Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 253, 323) makes the improbable conjecture that the statement referred originally to Ishmael, and formed, along with verse ¹⁸, the conclusion of chapter 16.

8. ויגוע וימת] verse ¹⁷ 35²⁹; see on 6¹⁷.—ושבע] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX better ושבע ימים, as 35²⁹.—ויאסף וגו׳] so 25¹⁷ 35²⁹ 49^{29. 33}, Numbers 20^{24. 26} 27¹³ 31², Deuteronomy 32⁵⁰† (all Priestly-Code).—10. השדה] LXX + καὶ τὸ σπήλαιον.—11. לחי ראי] see on 24⁶².

XXV. 12‒18. The Genealogy and Death of Ishmael (Priestly-Code).

With the exception of verse ¹⁸, which is another isolated fragment of Yahwist, the passage is an excerpt from the Tôledôth of the Priestly Code.—The names of the genealogy (^13‒16) represent at once ‘princes’ (נְשֵׁיאִם: compare the promise of 17²⁰) and ‘peoples’ (אֻמֹּת, ¹⁶); that is to say, they are the assumed eponymous ancestors of 12 tribes which are here treated as forming a political confederacy under the name of Ishmael.

In the geography of Priestly-Code the Ishmaelites occupy a territory intermediate between the Arabian Cushites on the South (10⁷), the Edomites, Moabites, etc., on the West, and the Aramæans on the North (10^{22 f.}); i.e., roughly speaking, the Syro-Arabian desert north of Ǧebel Shammar. In Yahwist they extend West to the border of Egypt (verse ¹⁸).—The Ishmaelites have left very little mark in history. From the fact that they are not mentioned in Egyptian or Assyrian records, Meyer infers that their flourishing period was from the 12th to the 9th centuries B.C. (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 324). In Old Testament the latest possible traces of Ishmael as a people are in the time of David (compare 2 Samuel 17²⁵, 1 Chronicles 2¹⁷ 27³⁰), though the name occurs sporadically as that of an individual or clan in much later times (Jeremiah 40^{8 ff.}, 2 Kings 25²³, 1 Chronicles 8³⁸ 9⁴⁴, 2 Chronicles 19¹¹ 23¹, Ezra 10²²). In Genesis 37^{25 ff.}, Judges 8²⁴, it is possible that ‘Ishmaelites’ is synonymous with Bedouin in general (see Meyer, 326).

13. נְבָיֹת וְקֵדָר] are the Nabayati and Ḳidri of Assyrian monuments (Asshurbanipal: Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ii. 215 ff.; compare Delitzsch Wo lag das Paradies? 297, 299; Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 151), and possibly the Nabatæi and Cedrei of Pliny, v. 65 (compare vi. 157, etc.). The references do not enable us to locate them with precision, but they must be put somewhere in the desert East of Palestine or Edom. The Nabatæans of a later age (see Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi^{3. 4}, i. 728 ff.) were naturally identified with נְבָיֹת by Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews i. 220 f.), Jerome (Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim), Targum^Jonathan [נבט], as they still are by Schrader, Schürer, and some others. But since the native name of the Nabatæans was נבטו, the identification is doubtful, and is now mostly abandoned. The two tribes are mentioned together in Isaiah 60⁷: נְבָיֹת alone only Genesis 28⁹ 36³; but קֵדָר is alluded to from the time of Jeremiah downwards as a typical nomadic tribe of the Eastern desert. In late Hebrew the name was extended to the Arabs as a whole (so Targum^Jonathan ערב).—אַדְבְּאֵל (Ναβδεήλ: see on verse ³)] Perhaps an Arab tribe Idibi’il which Tiglath-pileser IV. (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ii. 21) appointed to watch the Egyptian frontier (not necessarily the border of Egypt proper).—מִבְשָׂם] a Simeonite clan (1 Chronicles 4²⁵), otherwise not known.—14. מִשְׁמָע follows מבשם in 1 Chronicles 4²⁵. Dillmann compares a Ǧebel Misma’ South-east of Kāf, and another near Ḥāyil East of Teima.—דּוּמָה] Several places bearing this name are known (Dillmann); but the one that best suits this passage is the Dūmah which Arabic writers place 4 days’ journey North of Teima: viz. Dūmat el-Ǧendel, now called el-Ǧōf, a great oasis in the South of the Syrian desert and on the border of the Nefūd (Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta ii. 607; compare Burckhardt, Travels in Syria and the Holy Land. 602). It is probably the Δούμαιθα of Ptolemy v. 18 (19). 7, the Domata of Pliny vi. 157.—מַשָּׂא] See on 10³⁰, and compare Proverbs 31¹. A tribe Mas’a is named by Tiglath-pileser IV. along with Teima (verse ¹⁵), Saba’, Hayapa (⁴), Idibi’il (¹³), and may be identical with the Μασανοι of Ptolemy v. 18 (19). 2, North-east of Δούμαιθα.—15. חֲדַד] unknown.—תֵּימָא (Isaiah 21¹⁴, Jeremiah 25²³, Job 6¹⁹) is the modern Teima, on the West border of the Neǧd, circa 250 miles South-east of Aḳāba, still an important caravan station on the route from Yemen to Syria, and (as local inscriptions show) in ancient times the seat of a highly developed civilisation: see the descriptions in Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta i. 285 ff., 549 ff.—יְטוּר and נָפִישׁ are named together in 1 Chronicles 5¹⁹ among the East-Jordanic tribes defeated by the Reubenites in the time of Saul. יטור is no doubt the same people which emerges about 100 B.C. under the name Ἰτουραῖοι, as a body of fierce and predatory mountaineers settled in the Anti-Lebanon (see Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, i. 707 ff.).—Of קֵדְמָה nothing is known. Should we read נוֹדָב as 1 Chronicles 5¹⁹ (Ball, Kittel)?—16. בְּחַצְרֵיהֶם] ‘in their settlements’ or ‘villages’; compare Isaiah 42¹¹ ‘the villages that Kedar doth inhabit.’—וּבְטִירֹתָם] טִרָה (Numbers 31¹⁰, Ezekiel 25⁴, Psalms 69²⁶, 1 Chronicles 6³⁹) is apparently a technical term for the circular encampment of a nomadic tribe. According to Doughty (i. 261), the Arabic dīrah denotes the Bedouin circuit, but also, in some cases, their town settlements.—לְאֻמֹּתָם] ‘according to their peoples.’ אֻמֶּה is the Arabic ’ummat, rare in Hebrew (Numbers 25¹⁵, Psalms 117¹†).—17. Compare verses ^{7. 8}.

Verse ¹⁸ is a stray verse of Yahwist, whose original setting it is impossible to determine. There is much plausibility in Holzinger’s conjecture that it was the conclusion of Yahwist’s lost genealogy of Ishmael (compare 10^{19. 30}). Gunkel thinks it was taken from the end of chapter 16: similarly Meyer, who makes ^11b (page 352 above) a connecting link. Dillmann suggests that the first half may have followed 25⁶, the reference being not to the Ishmaelites but to the Ḳeṭureans; and that the second half is a gloss from 16¹². But even ^18a is not consistent with ^11b, for we have seen that the Ḳeṭureans are found East and South-east of Palestine, and Shûr is certainly not ‘eastward’ from where Abraham dwelt.—If Ḥavîlah has been rightly located on page 202 above, Yahwist fixes the eastern limit of the Ishmaelites in the neighbourhood of the Ǧōf es-Sirhān, while the western limit is the frontier of Egypt (on Shûr, see on 16⁷). This description is, of course, inapplicable to Priestly-Code’s Ishmaelites; but it agrees sufficiently with the statement of Elohist (21²¹) that their home was the wilderness of Paran; and it includes Lahai-roi, which was presumably an Ishmaelite sanctuary. Since a reference to Assyria is here out of place, the words בֹּאֲכָה אַשּׁוּרָה must be either deleted as a gloss (Wellhausen, Dillmann, Meyer, al.), or else read בּ׳ אָשׁוּרָה; אָשׁוּר being the hypothetical North Arabian tribe supposed to be mentioned in 25³ (so Gunkel; compare Hommel The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 240 f.; König Fünf Neue Arabische Landschaftsnamen im Alten Testament 11 ff.), a view for which there is very little justification.—^18b is an adaptation of 16^12b, but throws no light on that difficult sentence. Perhaps the best commentary is Judges 7¹², where again the verb נָפַל has the sense of ‘settle’ (= שָׁכֵן in 16¹²). Hommel’s restoration עַל־פְּנֵי כֶלַח, ‘in front of Kelaḥ’ (a secondary gloss on אַשּׁוּר), is a brilliant example of misplaced ingenuity.

THE HISTORY OF JACOB. Chapters XXV. 19‒XXXVI.

Setting aside chapter 26 (a misplaced appendix to the history of Abraham: see page 363), and chapter 36 (Edomite genealogies), the third division of the Book of Genesis is devoted exclusively to the biography of Jacob. The legends which cluster round the name of this patriarch fall into four main groups (see Gunkel 257 ff.).

A. Jacob and Esau:

1. The birth and youth of Esau and Jacob (25^19‒28). 2. The transference of the birthright (25^29‒34). 3. Jacob procures his father’s blessing by a fraud (27).

B. Jacob and Laban:

1. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel (29^1‒14). 2. His marriage to Leah and Rachel (29^15‒30). 3. The births of Jacob’s children (29³¹‒30²⁴). 4. Jacob’s bargain with Laban (30^25‒43). 5. The flight from Laban and the Treaty of Gilead (31¹‒32¹).

C. Jacob’s return to Canaan (loose and fragmentary):

1. Jacob’s measures for appeasing Esau (32^4‒22).¹ 2. The meeting of the brothers (33^1‒17).¹ 3. The sack of Shechem (34). 4. The visit to Bethel, etc. (35^1‒15). 5. The birth of Benjamin and death of Rachel (35^16‒20). 6. Reuben’s incest (35^{21 f.}).

D. Interspersed amongst these are several cult-legends, connected with sanctuaries of which Jacob was the reputed founder.

1. The dream at Bethel (28^10‒22)—a transition from A to B. 2. The encounter with angels at Mahanaim—a fragment (32^{2 f.}). 3. The wrestling at Peniel (32^23‒33). 4. The purchase of a lot at Shechem (33^18‒20). 5. The second visit to Bethel—partly biographical (see below) (35^1‒15).

¹ Gunkel recognises a second series of Jacob-Esau stories in C. 1, 2; but these are entirely different in character from the group A. To all appearance they are conscious literary creations, composed in a biographical interest, and without historical or ethnographic significance.

The section on Jacob exhibits a much more intimate fusion of sources than that on Abraham. The disjecta membra of Priestly-Code’s epitome can, indeed, be distinguished without much difficulty, viz. 25^{19. 20. 26b} 26^{34 f.} 28^1‒9 29^{24. 28b. 29} 30^{4a. 9b. 22a} 31^18aβγδb 33^18aβ 35^{6a. 9 f. 11‒13a. 15. 22b‒26. 27‒29} 36¹. Even here, however, the redactor has allowed himself a freedom which he hardly uses in the earlier portions of Genesis. Not only are there omissions in Priestly-Code’s narrative to be supplied from the other sources, but transposition seems to have been resorted to in order to preserve the sequence of events in Jehovist.—The rest of the material is taken from the composite Jehovist, with the exception of chapter 34, which seems to belong to an older stage of tradition (see page 418). But the component documents are no longer represented by homogeneous sections (like chapters 16. 18 f. [Yahwist], 20. 22 [Elohist]); they are so closely and continuously blended that their separation is always difficult and occasionally impossible, while no lengthy context can be wholly assigned to the one or to the other.—These phenomena are not due to a deliberate change of method on the part of the redactors, but rather to the material with which they had to deal. The Yahwist and Elohist recensions of the life of Jacob were so much alike, and so complete, that they ran easily into a single compound narrative whose strands are naturally often hard to unravel; and of so closely knit a texture that Priestly-Code’s skeleton narrative had to be broken up here and there in order to fit into the connexion.

To trace the growth of so complex a legend as that of Jacob is a tempting but perhaps hopeless undertaking. It may be surmised that the Jacob-Esau (A) and Jacob-Laban (B) stories arose independently and existed separately, the first in the south of Judah, and the second east of the Jordan. The amalgamation of the two cycles gave the idea of Jacob’s flight to Aram and return to Canaan; and into this framework were fitted various cult-legends which had presumably been preserved at the sanctuaries to which they refer. As the story passed from mouth to mouth, it was enriched by romantic incidents like the meeting of Jacob and Rachel at the well, or the reconciliation of Jacob and Esau; and before it came to be written down by Yahwist and Elohist, the history of Jacob as a whole must have assumed a fixed form in Israelite tradition. Its most remarkable feature is the strongly marked biographic motive which lends unity to the narrative, and of which the writers must have been conscious,—the development of Jacob’s character from the unscrupulous roguery of chapters 25, 27 to the moral dignity of 32 ff. Whether tradition saw in him a type of the national character of Israel is more doubtful.

As regards the historicity of the narratives, it has to be observed in the first place that the ethnographic idea is much more prominent in the story of Jacob than in that of any other patriarch. It is obvious that the Jacob-Esau stories of chapters 25, 27 reflect the relations between the nations of Israel and Edom; and similarly at the end of chapter 31, Jacob and Laban appear as representatives of Israelites and Aramæans. It has been supposed that the ethnographic motive, which comes to the surface in these passages, runs through the entire series of narratives (though disguised by the biographic form), and that by means of it we may extract from the legends a kernel of ancient tribal history. Thus, according to Steuernagel, Jacob (or Ya‛ăḳōb-ēl) was a Hebrew tribe which, being overpowered by the Edomites, sought refuge among the Aramæans, and afterwards, reinforced by the absorption of an Aramæan clan (Rachel), returned and settled in Canaan: the events being placed between the Exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Palestine (Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 38 ff., 56 ff.: compare Bennett 286). There are indeed few parts of the patriarchal history where this kind of interpretation yields more plausible results; and it is quite possible that the above construction contains elements of truth. At the same time, the method is one that requires to be applied with very great caution. In the first place, it is not certain that Jacob, Esau, and Laban were originally personifications of Israel, Edom, and Aram respectively: they may be real historic individuals; or they may be mythical heroes round whose names a rich growth of legend had gathered before they were identified with particular peoples. In the second place, even if they were personified tribes, the narrative must necessarily contain many features which belong to the personifications, and have no ethnological significance whatever. If, e.g., one set of legends describes Israel’s relations with Edom in the south and another its relations with the Aramæans in the east, it was necessary that the ideal ancestor of Israel should be represented as journeying from the one place to the other; but we have no right to conclude that a similar migration was actually performed by the nation of Israel. And there are many incidents even in this group of narratives which cannot naturally be understood of dealings between one tribe and another. As a general rule, the ethnographic interpretation must be confined to those incidents where it is either indicated by the terms of the narrative, or else confirmed by external evidence.

XXV. 19‒34. The Birth of Esau and Jacob, and the Transference of the Birthright (Priestly-Code, Jehovist).

In answer to Isaac’s prayer, Rebekah conceives and bears twin children, Esau and Jacob. In the circumstances of their birth (^21‒26), and in their contrasted modes of life (^{27. 28}), Hebrew legend saw prefigured the national characteristics, the close affinity, and the mutual rivalry of the two peoples, Edom and Israel; while the story of Esau selling his birthright (^29‒34) explains how Israel, the younger nation, obtained the ascendancy over the older, Edom.

Analysis.—verses ^{19. 20} are taken from Priestly-Code; note וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת, הוֹלִיד, הָאֲרַמִּי (bis), פַּדַּן אֲרָם. To Priestly-Code must also be referred the chronological notice ^26b, which shows that an account of the birth of the twins in that source has been suppressed in favour of Yahwist. There is less reason to suspect a similar omission of the marriage of Isaac before verse ²⁰.—The rest of the passage belongs to the composite work Jehovist. The stylistic criteria (יהוה ^{21 bis. 22. 23}; עָתַר, ^{21 bis}; לָֽמָּה־זֶּה‎, ²²; צָעִיר, ²³) and the resemblance of ^24‒26 to 38^{27 ff.} point to Yahwist as the leading source of ^21‒28; though Elohistic variants may possibly be detected in ^{25. 27} (Dillmann, Gunkel, Procksch, al.). Less certainty obtains with regard to ^29‒34, which most critics are content to assign to Yahwist (so Dillmann, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Cornill, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Driver, al.), while others (Oxford Hexateuch, Gunkel, Students’ Old Testament. Procksch) assign it to Elohist because of the allusion in 27³⁶. That reason is not decisive, and the linguistic indications are rather in favour of Yahwist (נָא, ³⁰; לָֽמָּה־זֶּה, ³² [Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 36]; על־כן קרא שמו, ³⁰).

19, 20. Isaac’s marriage.—Priestly-Code follows Elohist (31^{20. 24}) in describing Rebekah’s Mesopotamian relatives as Aramæans (compare 28⁵), though perhaps in a different sense. Here it naturally means descendants of ’Ărām, the fifth son of Shem (10²³). That this is a conscious divergence from the tradition of Yahwist is confirmed by 28²: see Budde Die biblische Urgeschichte 420 ff.—On Bĕthû’ēl, see page 247 above.—Paddan ’Ărām] (28^{2. 6. 7} 31¹⁸ 33¹⁸ 35^{9. 26} 46¹⁵ [פַּדָּן alone 48⁷]: LXX Μεσοποταμίας) is Priestly-Code’s equivalent for ’Ăram Nahăraim in Yahwist (24¹⁰); and in all probability denotes the region round Ḥarran (v.i.).

19. ואלה ת׳ יצחק] commonly regarded as the heading of the section (of Genesis or) of Priestly-Code ending with the death of Isaac (35²⁹); but see the notes on pages 40 f., 235 f. The use of the formula is anomalous, inasmuch as the birth of Isaac, already recorded in Priestly-Code, is included in his own genealogy. It looks as if the editor had handled his document somewhat freely, inserting the words יִצְחָק בֶּן־ in the original heading תּוֹלְדֹת אַבְרָהָם] (compare verse ¹²).—20. פדן] Syriac , Arabic faddān = ‘yoke of oxen’; hence (in Arabic) a definite measure of land (jugerum: compare Lane, 2353 b). A similar sense has been claimed for Assyrian padanu on the authority of II R. 62, 33 a, b (Delitzsch Wo lag das Paradies? 135). On this view פ׳ ארם would be equivalent to שְׂדֵה אֲרָם = ‘field of Aram’ in Hosea 12¹³. Ordinarily, padanu means ‘way’ (Delitzsch Assyrisches Handwörterbuch, 515 f.); hence it has been thought that the word is another designation of Ḥarran (see 11³¹), in the neighbourhood of which a place Paddānā (vicus prope Ḥarran: Robert Payne Smith Thesaurus Syriacus 3039) has been known from early Christian times: Nöldeke, however, thinks this may be due to a Christian localisation of the biblical story (Encyclopædia Biblica, i. 278). Others less plausibly connect the name with the kingdom of Patin, with its centre North of the Lake of Antioch (Winckler Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 38).

21‒23. The pre-natal oracle.—21. With the prolonged barrenness of Rebekah, compare the cases of Sarah, and Rachel (29³¹), the mothers of Samson (Judges 13²), Samuel (1 Samuel 1²), and John the Baptist (Luke 1⁷).—Isaac prayed to Yahwe] Compare 1 Samuel 1^{10 ff.}. No miraculous intervention is suggested; and our only regret is that this glimpse of everyday family piety is so tantalisingly meagre.—22. During pregnancy the children crushed one another] (v.i.) in a struggle for priority of birth.

Compare the story of Akrisios and Proitus (Apollodorus Bibliotheca ii. 2. 1 ff.), sons of Abas, king of Argos, who κατὰ γαστρὸς μὲν ἔτι ὄντες ἐστασίαζον πρὸς ἀλλήλους. The sequel presents a certain parallelism to the history of Esau and Jacob, which has a bearing on the question whether there is an element of mythology behind the ethnological interpretation of the biblical narrative (see pages 455 f.). Another parallel is the Polynesian myth of the twins Tangaroa and Rongo (Cheyne Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 356).

21. עתר] peculiar to Yahwist in Hexateuch: Exodus 8^{4. 5. 24. 25. 26} 9²⁸ 10^{17. 18}. In Arabic ‛atr and ‛atīrat mean animals slain in sacrifice; hence Hebrew הַעְתִּיר (Hiphil may everywhere be read instead of Qal) probably referred originally to sacrifice accompanied by prayer, though no trace of the former idea survives in Hebrew: “Das Gebet ist der Zweck oder die Interpretation des Opfers, die Begriffe liegen nahe bei einander” (Wellhausen 142).

Rebekah, regarding this as a portent, expresses her dismay in words not quite intelligible in the text: If it [is to] be so, why then am I...?] v.i.—to inquire of Yahwe] to seek an oracle at the sanctuary.—23. The oracle is communicated through an inspired personality, like the Arabic kāhin (Wellhausen Reste arabischen Heidentums², 134 ff.), and is rhythmic in form (ib. 135).—two nations] whose future rivalries are prefigured in the struggle of the infants.—The point of the prophecy is in the last line: The elder shall serve the younger (see on 27^{29. 40}).

22. ויתרצצו] LXX ἐσκίρτων (the same word as Luke 1^{41. 44}), perhaps confusing רוץ, ‘run,’ with רצץ, ‘break.’ More correctly, Aquila συνεθλάσθησαν; Symmachus διεπάλαιον.—אם כן למה זה אנכי] LXX εἰ οὕτως μοι μέλλει γένεσθαι, ἵνα τί μοι τοῦτο; But the זָה merely emphasises the interrogative (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 136 c), and the latter part of the sentence seems incomplete: Vulgate quid necesse fuit concipere? Peshiṭtå . Graetz supplies הָרָה; Dillmann, Ball, Kittel חַיָּה (compare 27⁴⁶); Frankenberg (Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1901, 697) changes אנכי to אחיה, while Gunkel makes it אֻנָּה לִי (Psalms 91¹⁰), with זה as subject.—23. לְאֹם] a poetic word; in Hexateuch only 27²⁹ (Yahwist).—צעיר] ‘the small[er],’ in the sense of ‘younger,’ is characteristic of Yahwist (19^{31. 34. 35. 38} 29²⁶ 43³³, Joshua 6²⁶ [1 Kings 16³⁴]†).

24‒26. Birth and naming of the twins.—24. Compare 38^27‒30, the only other description of a twin-birth in the Old Testament.—25. אַדְמוֹנִי—either tawny or red-haired—is a play on the name Edom (see on verse ³⁰); similarly, all over like a mantle of hair (שֶׁעָר) is a play on Sē‛îr, the country of the Edomites (36⁸). It is singular that the name ‛Ēsāw itself (on which v.i.) finds no express etymology.—26a. with his hand holding Esau’s heel] (Hosea 12⁴) a last effort (verse ²²) to secure the advantage of being born first. There are no solid grounds for thinking (with Gunkel, Luther [Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 128], Nowack, al.) that Hosea 12^4a (בבטן עָקַב את־אחיו) presupposes a different version of the legend, in which Jacob actually wrested the priority from his brother (compare 38^{28 f.}). The clause is meant as an explanation of the name ‘Jacob.’

24. תּוֹמִים] properly תְּאֹמִים (so The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch), as 38²⁷.—25. אַדְמוֹנִי used again only of David, 1 Samuel 16¹² 17⁴². It is usually explained of the ‘reddish brown’ hue of the skin; but there is much to be said for the view that it means ‘red-haired’ (LXX πυρράκης, Vulgate rufus: so Gesenius, Tuch, al.). The incongruity of the word with the name עֵשָׂו creates a suspicion that it may be either a gloss or a variant from a parallel source (Dillmann): for various conjectures see Budde Die biblische Urgeschichte 217²; Cheyne Encyclopædia Biblica, 1333; Winckler Altorientalische Forschungen, i. 344 f.—עֵשָׂו has no Hebrew etymology. The nearest comparison is Arabic ’a‛taʸ (so most) = ‘hirsute’ (also ‘stupid’), though that would require as strict Hebrew equivalent עֵשָׁו (Driver). A connexion with the Phœnician Οὐσωος, brother of Šamêmrûm, and a hero of the chase, is probable, though not certain. There is also a goddess ‛Asît, figured on Egyptian monuments, who has been thought to be a female form of Esau (Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 316 f.).—ויקראו] LXX, Peshiṭtå ליקרא, as verse ²⁶; but The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch has plural both times. In any case the subject is indefinite.—26. יַֽעֲקֹב is a contraction of יעקבאל (compare יִפְתָּח, Joshua 15⁴³), Judges 11^{1 ff.} with יִפְתַּח־אֵל, Joshua 19^{14. 27}; יַבְנֶה, 2 Chronicles 26⁶ with יַבְנְאֵל, Joshua 15¹¹) which occurs (a) as a place name in central Palestine on the list of Thothmes III. (No 102: Y‛ḳb’r);¹ and (b) as a personal name (Ya‛ḳub-ilu)² in a Babylonian contract tablet of the age of Ḫammurabi. The most obvious interpretation of names of this type is to take them as verbal sentences, with ’Ēl as subject: ‘God overreaches,’ or ‘follows,’ or ‘rewards,’ according to the sense given to the √ עקב (see Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 218).³ They may, however, be nominal sentences: ‘Ya‛ḳōb is God’ (see Meyer 282); in which case the meaning of the name יַֽעֲקֹב is pushed a step farther back. The question whether Jacob was originally a tribe, a deity, or an individual man, thus remains unsettled by etymology.—At end of verse, LXX adds Ῥεβέκκα,—an improvement in style.

¹ Meyer Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vi. 8; Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 251 f., 281 f.; Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 162 f.; Luther, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxi. 60 ff.—The name has since been read by Müller in a list of Ramses II., and (defectively written) in one of Ramses III.: see Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1907, i. 27.—Questioned by Langdon, The Expository Times, xxi. (1909), page 90.

² Hommel The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 96, 112. According to Hommel, the contracted form Yaḳubu also occurs in the Tablets (ib. 203¹).

³ In Hebrew the verb (a denominative from עָקֵב, ‘heel’) is only used with allusion to the story or character of Jacob (27³⁶, Hosea 12⁴, Jeremiah 9³†: in Job 37⁴ the text is doubtful), and expresses the idea of insidiousness or treachery. So עָקֵב (Psalms 49⁶†), עָקֹב (Jeremiah 17⁹), עָקְבָּה (2 Kings 10¹⁹†). The meanings ‘follow’ and ‘reward’ are found in Arabic (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 784 a).

27, 28. Their manner of life.—27. Esau becomes a man skilled in hunting, a man of the field] It is hardly necessary to suppose that the phrases are variants from different documents. Though this conception of Esau’s occupation is not consistently maintained (see 33⁹), it has doubtless some ethnographic significance; and game is said to be plentiful in the Edomite country (Buhl, Edomiter, 43).—Jacob, on the other hand, chooses the half-nomadic pastoral life which was the patriarchal ideal. אִישׁ תָּם, elsewhere ‘an ethically blameless man’ (Job 1⁸ etc.), here describes the orderly, well-disposed man (Scoticè, ‘douce’), as contrasted with the undisciplined and irregular huntsman.—28. A preparation for chapter 27, which perhaps followed immediately on these two verses. Verse ²⁷, however, is also presupposed by♦

28. כִּי צַיִד בְּפִיו] A curious phrase, meaning ‘venison was to his taste.’ It would be easier to read (with Ball al.) לְפִיו; or an adjective (טוֹב?) may have fallen out. LXX, Peshiṭtå appear to have read צֵידוֹ.

29‒34. Esau parts with the birthright.—The superiority of Israel to Edom is popularly explained by a typical incident, familiar to the pastoral tribes bordering on the desert, where the wild huntsman would come famishing to the shepherd’s tent to beg for a morsel of food. At such times the ‘man of the field’ is at the mercy of the tent-dweller; and the ordinary Israelite would see nothing immoral in a transaction like this, where the advantage is pressed to the uttermost.—The legend takes no account of the fact that Edom, as a settled state older than Israel, must have been something more than a mere nation of hunters. The contrasted types of civilisation—Jacob the shepherd and Esau the hunter—were firmly fixed in the popular mind; and the supremacy of the former was an obvious corollary.—29. Jacob stewed something: an intentionally indefinite description, the nature of the dish being reserved as a surprise for verse ³⁴.—30. Let me gulp some of the red—that red there!] With a slight vocalic change (v.i.), we may render: some of that red seasoning (strictly ‘obsonium’).—’Ĕdōm] a play on the word for ‘red’ (אָדֹם). The name is “a memento of the never-to-be-forgotten greed and stupidity of the ancestor” (Gunkel).—31. Jacob seizes the opportunity to secure the long-coveted ‘birthright,’ i.e. the superior status which properly belonged to the first-born son.

The rare term בְּכֹרָה denotes the advantages and rights usually enjoyed by the eldest son, including such things as (a) natural vigour of body and character (Genesis 49³, Deuteronomy 21¹⁷: ∥ רֵאשִׁית אוֹן), creating a presumption of success in life, (b) a position of honour as head of the family (Genesis 27²⁹ 49⁸), and (c) a double share of the inheritance (Deuteronomy 21^{15 ff.}). By a legal fiction this status was conceived as transferable from the actual first-born to another son who had proved himself more worthy of the dignity (1 Chronicles 5^{1 f.}). When applied to tribes or nations, it expresses superiority in political might or material prosperity; and this is the whole content of the notion in the narrative before us. The idea of spiritual privilege, or a mystic connexion (such as is suggested in Hebrews 12^{16 f.}) between the birthright and the blessing of chapter 27, is foreign to the spirit of the ancient legends, which owe their origin to ætiological reflexion on the historic relations of Israel and Edom. The passage furnishes no support to the ingenious theory of Jacob’s (Biblical Archaeology 46 ff.), that an older custom of “junior right” is presupposed by the patriarchal tradition.

29. ויזד—נזיד] זוּד only here in the literal sense; elsewhere = ‘act presumptuously.’ The derivative נזיד (2 Kings 4³⁸, Haggai 2¹²) with rare prefix na (common in Assyrian).—30. הַלְעִיטֵנִי (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον)] a coarse expression suggesting bestial voracity; used in New Hebrew of the feeding of cattle.—האדם האדם] The repetition of the same word is awkward, even in an expression of impatient greed. The emendation referred to above consists in reading the first הָֽאֱדֹם after Arabic ’idām = ‘seasoning or condiment for bread’ (compare verse ³⁴): so Boysen (cited in Schleusner², i. 969), T. D. Anderson (ap. Dillmann). This is better than (Driver al.) to make the change in both places, LXX (τοῦ ἑψέματος τοῦ πυρροῦ τούτου) and Vulgate (de coctione hac rufa) seem to differentiate the words.—31. כַּיּוֹם] = ‘first of all,’ as ³³, 1 Samuel 2¹⁶, 1 Kings 1⁵¹ 22⁵ (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 400 b).

32. Esau’s answer reveals the sensual nature of the man: the remoter good is sacrificed to the passing necessity of the moment, which his ravenous appetite leads him to exaggerate.—הֹלֵךְ לָמוּת does not mean ‘exposed to death sooner or later’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra, Dillmann, al.), but ‘at the point of death now.’—34. The climax of the story is Esau’s unconcern even when he discovers that he has bartered the birthright for such a trifle as a dish of lentil soup.—עֲדָשִׁים (2 Samuel 17²⁸, 23¹¹, Ezekiel 4⁹), still a common article of diet in Egypt and Syria, under the name ‛adas: the colour is said to be ‘a darkish brown’ (A Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 95a).—The last clause implies a certain moral justification of the transaction: if Esau was defrauded, he was defrauded of that which he was incapable of appreciating.